25 Oct 04
Originally posted by steerpikethat is an ALF guideline - and i'm in complete support of it (in principle, at least).
There certainly have been many incidents like this -and the Animal Liberation Front lists as its second guidleline:
"TO inflict economic damage to those who profit from the misery and exploitation of animals. "
Is there a connection between PETA and the ALF? Are the ALF in support of your boycott?
i engage in that practise myself whenever i refuse to shop in a particular store and encourage others not to as well or participate in protests.
PETA is not ALF if that's what you are getting at - it is an effort that some people (CCF for instance) try hard to contrive.
it would be logical to assume that ALF would be in support of the boycott though i haven't seen anything official from them - but then i haven't looked either.
in friendship,
prad
25 Oct 04
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, not all animals have rights. I think having rights depends on having certain psychological capacites, such as the capacity to suffer, the capacity for rudimentary rationality, and the capacity for rudimentary self-consciousness (i.e., the capacity to recognize that one is a subject of experience). I think that only mammals have these capacities, so only mammals have rights. Hence, I don't think that mosquitos have rights (though I'll put them outside rather than squash them, as that minimizes suffering without undue hardship to myself). I'd prefer to capture rats and release them than to have them exterminated, but if they pose a serious threat to my well-being or that of my family, and if removing them without killing them is impossible, I'd have them exterminated. This is consistent with their having rights, however. A right is not something such that violating it is always impermissible. For instance, a right to feedom of expression is consistent with constraints on expression, as you well know. An animal's right to life, for instance, does not mandate that killing that animal is impermissible under all circumstances. When such a right can be violated will be a matter of debate, and the particularities of the situation will need to be taken into account. I do think that the lives of humans are more valuable than those of animals, because humans suffer a greater loss through dying than animals, ceteris paribus. The objection to humans owning other creatures as property is that such ownership would license treating the owned animals in any way the owner sees fit. This follows simply from what it means for something to be owned as property. But it is impermissible to treat animals in any way one sees fit. Hence, animals are not proper objects of ownership. If you recognize constraints on how we may justifiably treat animals, then you are thereby committed to either denying that they are proper objects of ownership, or you have a non-standard notion of 'property'.
Surely you're not suggesting that animals have equal rights to human beings are you? Does a mosquito's right to be free of suffering mean you can't swat it? Does the family of rats that infest your basement right to be free of suffering mean you can't call the exterminator to poison them? And yes, human beings can and do own animals as proper ...[text shortened]... uld be against it. Please enlighten me.
In OKI'llbiteship,
2BitLawyer
25 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderit's not an exaggeration and some of it may have to do with how the protest is conducted.
As someone who had the personal experience of being tear gassed and having a mounted Boston police officer swing a club at my head during a peaceful march in favor of integrating schools in 1974(!), I'd say that statemment is ...[text shortened]...
In Hemissedmehemissedmeship,
2BitLawyer
most police, that i've encountered, try to maintain law and order and one's right to peaceful protest.
there are of course exceptions and certainly very unfortunate and injudicious ones - in which the group supposed to be maintaining the law, break it well before those protesting.
one of my colleagues was hosed and ended up with a broken arm in the 70s.
one of my students was pepper-sprayed during the wto protests in quebec a few years ago.
however, i think it is fortunate that around here you can protest and have your say and even change some minds - in some places, you don't get the chance.
in friendship,
prad
25 Oct 04
Originally posted by pradtfRHP comments? Well, we're on RHP so that's the kind of comments I make (if I was on, say, GoldenToken, I'd make GoldTokenish comments).
well you've obviously not read things too carefully - or don't want to.
may be if you saw the video you would not decide it is a trivial issue.
these alternatives have been suggested for quite a while - they are not adopted because it is considered cheaper to do the 'operation' without even anaesthetic (nevermind all the other stuff).
threatening ...[text shortened]... than ranting on about this with your usual sprinkling of RHP comments.
in friendship,
prad
The physical discomfort of a sheep is a trivial issue to me esp. considering the state the world is today. So you can't convince fellow human beings that you're right, so you adopt measures aimed at attempting to financially ruin them because a sheep is in some pain! Maybe the children of the people you are anxious to "financially ruin" if they don't think your minority is correct might have a different view if such a result interferes with their quality of living: you know, little things like how much they eat, what clothes they have, etc. I'd rather a sheep be in a temporary state of pain than take the chance that a human being would be placed in a permanent one.
All the boycotts you cited and the work of Tutu and Gandhi was related to stopping HUMAN suffering and injustice. I'm sure sheep were being treated at least just as badly in 1940's India and 1980's South Africa as they are in 2000's Australia; however, for some strange reason Gandhi and Tutu did not regard this issue as terribly important. Why do you think that was? In a world with war, exploitation and human suffering on a mass scale someone who wastes their time in "social action" to end the suffering of sheep has their priorities warped. Don't use the names of men who spent their lives crusading to help their fellow human beings to support your ridiculous, trivial sideshow.
In Onpointenoughforyaship,
2BitLawyer
25 Oct 04
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderwell gandhi did regard animal cruelty as being a no-no. if you look back in the thread you'll see that the animal issue was one that gandhi was committed to.
Gandhi and Tutu did not regard this issue as terribly important. Why do you think that was? In a world with war, exploitation and human suffering on a mass scale someone who wastes their time in "social action" to end the suffering of ...[text shortened]... fellow human beings to support your ridiculous, trivial sideshow.
you are assuming that if someone supports animals, this means that they don't support humans. what you don't understand is that it is not a one or another matter. many AR activists are also HR activists and vis versa. however, don't expect an AR activist (or even an HR activist) to support cruelty to animals just so some people can make more money.
btw, sheep and other animals weren't treated as badly in the past because the same mass production wasn't in place in quite the same way.
in friendship,
prad
25 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderEarly in this thread Sangeeta claimed that alternative to mulesing exist that would still allow wool production, so I don't think anybody is claiming that only humane course of action here is one that results in the complete cessation of wool production and, hence, undue financial hardship for wool producers and their families.
RHP comments? Well, we're on RHP so that's the kind of comments I make (if I was on, say, GoldenToken, I'd make GoldTokenish comments).
The physical discomfort of a sheep is a trivial issue to me esp. considering ...[text shortened]... In Onpointenoughforyaship,
2BitLawyer
You seem to think that it is an error to advocate for humane treatment of animals when humans are also being treated inhumanely. Is there a forced choice here? Why can't one advocate humane treatment for both human and non-human animals? If I were to adopt a dog from the pound, would I be committing a moral error because the money I spend to feed the dog could have been donated to a homeless shelter? Suppose I volunteer at the homeless shelter, would adopting a dog still be a moral error? If you think so, why?
25 Oct 04
Originally posted by bbarrYou seem to have a "non-standard notion of property" or at least, a non-legal one. There are all kinds of restraints on what we can do with our property; zoning, speeding laws, etc. etc. etc. A legal restraint on your property does not divest you of property rights though it may limit the particular use of the property. Thus, I do not agree that animals are "not proper objects of ownership" and I do not agree that a certain amount of physical discomfort to a sheep morally justifies an attempt to ruin a human being and his family's livelihood.
The objection to humans owning other creatures as property is that such ownership would license treating the owned animals in any way the owner sees fit. This follows simply from what it means for something to be owned as property. But it is impermissible to treat animals in any way one sees fit. Hence, animals are not proper objects of ownership. If you ...[text shortened]... ng that they are proper objects of ownership, or you have a non-standard notion of 'property'.
I agree with the rest of your post in general terms.
In Mydogisnamedpropertyship,
2BitLawyer
25 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderso why can't the physical discomfort be eliminated when there have been ways to do so for quite a while? just what is your problem with that?
I do not agree that a certain amount of physical discomfort to a sheep morally justifies an attempt to ruin a human being and his family's livelihood.
and where do you get the idea that someone necessarily has to be ruined because more humane methods are implemented?
in friendship,
prad
25 Oct 04
I have a cat who showed up at my door 3 years ago starving. The cat chose to live here, as far as cats can choose. Nevertheless, I now officially own the cat and I will be held responsible if it spreads rabies, for example. I therefore get it immunized against disease at regular intervals. (Not that I wouldn't anyways, but I'm expected to look out for its welfare, it's an onus on me.) Do I *really* own the cat? If it chose to leave tomorrow and never come back, could I morally object to its new "owners"? (I could object legally, because I've spent money on it and have the bills) In this case, I'm wondering what "ownership" really means. I don't have the power (morally) to throw the cat away because it ripped my screen door, for example. I just get better screens. I do have the power to end its life if it becomes terminally sick and is suffering. (What are friends for?) I'm rambling, sorry. Just drove 300 miles.
25 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThese restrictions are, by and large, in place so as to protect the rights of other humans. You cannot drive any speed you please because if you did you would pose a risk to other humans. In the absence of competing rights claims by humans, owning a thing is sufficient license to do with it what you please. If you recognize any restrictions on how animals ought to be treated, then, again, you are committed to their not being proper objects of ownership (or you think, strangely, that your use of animals is somehow constrained by the rights of other humans).
You seem to have a "non-standard notion of property" or at least, a non-legal one. There are all kinds of restraints on what we can do with our property; zoning, speeding laws, etc. etc. etc. A legal restraint on your property d ...[text shortened]...
In Mydogisnamedpropertyship,
2BitLawyer
25 Oct 04
Originally posted by KneverKnightSince you seem to recognize that you have obligations towards the cat, it would certainly seem strange to claim that you *really* own it. Does it make sense to claim that you can have an obligation towards something that you own?
I have a cat who showed up at my door 3 years ago starving. The cat chose to live here, as far as cats can choose. Nevertheless, I now officially own the cat and I will be held responsible if it spreads rabies, for example. I therefore get it immunized against disease at regular intervals. (Not that I wouldn't anyways, but I'm expected to look out for ...[text shortened]... nally sick and is suffering. (What are friends for?) I'm rambling, sorry. Just drove 300 miles.
25 Oct 04
Originally posted by bbarrActually what I'm saying is: A) There seems to be some dispute on the technique involved with the farmers saying it either isn't inhumane or that it would be cost prohibitive to adopt an alternative procedure. The pro-boycott side seems to be assuming that the farmers are simply being greedy and therefore, to threaten financial ruin is acceptable. I am saying is the issue, in and of itself, isn't worth a boycott about because it seems to me that no one is alleging that the sheep is suffering anything but a certain temporary level of pain. Therefore, the issue is trivial on its merits.
Early in this thread Sangeeta claimed that alternative to mulesing exist that would still allow wool production, so I don't think anybody is claiming that only humane course of action here is one that results in the complete cessation of wool production and, hence, undue financial hardship for wool producers and their families.
You seem to think that it is ...[text shortened]... eer at the homeless shelter, would adopting a dog still be a moral error? If you think so, why?
and B) Advocating for anything implies an allocation of one's time and resources. It is certainly a "moral" thing to want animals treated in a non-cruel manner (not that I concede this technique is cruel); however, it is at best a secondary matter to trying to insure that human beings are treated in a non-cruel manner. Therefore, in my opinion, one's resources would be better spent advocating for the better treatment of human beings than of sheep. Pradtf obviously feels the opposite as his lack of compassion for human being has been made clear on this site. To spend one's time advocating against a trivial "evil" when there are great and monstrous evils to fight against, seems to be a moral error.
In Philosophysucksship,
2BitLawyer
25 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by KneverKnightwelcome back after that long drive!
I have a cat who showed up at my door 3 years ago starving. The cat chose to live here, as far as cats can choose. Nevertheless, I now officially own the cat and I will be held responsible if it spreads rabies, for example. I therefore ...[text shortened]... What are friends for?) I'm rambling, sorry. Just drove 300 miles.
i think ownership as you have expressed it means you have taken on the responsibility to care for your companion and be responsible for its actions.
it does not mean that you can do as you please and fortunately there are laws in place throughout the civilized world that offer some degree of protection for certain animals.
unfortunately, agricultural animals are not yet afforded the same protections though that has started to change thanks to the awareness brought about by animal rights and animal welfare groups.
for instance, austria recently implemented some very strong legislation on behalf of farm animals (see below).
in friendship,
prad
Tough animal rights laws enacted in Austria
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5077350/
VIENNA, Austria - Hens will be free to run around barnyards, lions and tigers will vanish from circus acts, and Dobermans will sport what nature intended ? floppy ears and longer tails ? under a tough animal rights law adopted Thursday in Austria.
The anticruelty law, one of Europe's harshest, will ban pet owners from cropping their dogs? ears or tails, force farmers to uncage their chickens, and ensure that puppies and kittens no longer swelter in pet shop windows.
Violators face steep fines
Violators will be subject to fines of $2,420, and in cases of extreme cruelty could be fined up to $18,160 and have their animals seized by the authorities.
Lawmakers, some holding stuffed toy animals, voted unanimously to enact the law, which takes effect in January and will be phased in over several years. Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel said Austria was sending a stern message to the rest of Europe and the world about respecting animals.
"Austria is taking the role of pioneer," Schuessel told parliament, vowing to press for similar legislation across the European Union. ?This new law will give both producers and consumers a good feeling, and it lifts animal protection to the highest level internationally.
It's the latest example of how the animals rights issue is gaining attention across Europe:
The European Commission has proposed a sweeping overhaul of EU regulations on transporting livestock across the continent to give more protection to the hundreds of thousands of animals that are shipped daily and to prevent deaths and abuse.
In March, Hungary's parliament banned cockfighting and the breeding or sale of animals for fighting, and it made animal torture - previously a misdemeanor - a felony punishable by up to two years in prison.
Last summer, the region of Catalonia, which passed Spain's first animal cruelty law in 1988, banned the killing of abandoned cats and dogs in animal shelters and raised fines for cruelty to as much as $24,200.
Italy is considering a law that forbids sending horses to the slaughterhouse after their competitive careers are over, and Germany plans to phase out mass farming of caged chickens by the end of 2006.
Austrians' love for animals dates to imperial times, with the famed Lipizzaner stallions pampered as a source of national pride.
Circus animals, chickens, puppies to benefit
Aimed primarily at poultry and other livestock, Austria?s new law also outlaws the use of lions and other wild animals in circuses and makes it illegal to restrain dogs with chains, choke collars or -invisible fences- that administer mild electric shocks to confine animals.
The measure enjoyed the support of all four main parties in the National Assembly, where Minister of Social Affairs Herbert Haupt drew laughter by holding up a stuffed toy dog while addressing lawmakers Thursday.
Haupt, a veterinarian, had pushed for the law since the 1980s. It still needs the president?s signature, a formality given its unanimous passage.
"Animals and consumers are the clear winners with this law," said Ulrike Sima, a lawmaker specializing in animal protection issues for the opposition Socialist Party.
A key provision bans the widespread practice of confining chickens to small cages on farms and makes it a crime to bind cattle tightly with ropes.
Pet owners and breeders no longer will be allowed to crop puppies? ears or tails, a common practice with certain breeds such as Doberman pinschers. Sweden has banned the practice since 1989.
Invisible fences are out, too, though they're nowhere near as ubiquitous here as they are in U.S. suburbs.
'A first step in the right direction'
"This is a first step in the right direction," said Andreas Sax of the Austrian animal rights organization Four Paws.
Sax said the law won't do enough to improve conditions for cattle and pigs, who often are injured in cramped pens with slatted floors, and he criticized some sections he said were too vague.
The Austrian Farm Federation opposed the law, arguing that it will increase costs for farmers and could lead to more imports of poultry from countries with looser restrictions.
Chicken farmers will be allowed several years to phase in the new rules. Those who recently invested in new cages will have until 2020 to turn their birds loose to run free inside fences.
The law calls for creating an animal rights ombudsman to oversee the treatment of animals on farms and in zoos, circuses and pet shops. Austria has an estimated 140,000 enterprises that breed or sell animals.
© 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
25 Oct 04
Originally posted by bbarrEquating ownership with a lack of obligation may have worked rather well a few generations ago. I suspect that in this day and age the law would place at least some form of obligation on owners of a whole range of things.
Since you seem to recognize that you have obligations towards the cat, it would certainly seem strange to claim that you *really* own it. Does it make sense to claim that you can have an obligation towards something that you own?
I'm currently looking at buying a house. I'm quite sure there will be plenty of laws regulating what I can and cannot do with it. I suspect that at least some of these will be aimed, in some oblique way, at keeping the house in an 'acceptable' condition. I'm certainly aware of at least one case of neighbours being able to take a homeowner to court because of the state of their property.
I'm happy for you to explain how this is different to the cat. I recognise I've operated at a high level of abstraction here.